Archives

Contribute to Our Research

Ten Wishes for the New Year: #9

The story so far: For the start of the new year, I had hoped to do one of those “top ten” lists of things I’d like to see happen in the Disney parks – and especially Walt Disney World – in 2009. Not that I would deem any of my wishes likely to be fulfilled, but as a fan of lists and unsolicited criticism I can’t help myself.

Here’s the next item that I’d like to see at the Disney parks in 2009:

#9 – Rethink the Resorts

Pop Century ResortHmm… where to begin…

Originally the topic for this slot was going to be narrower in scope, but I’ve realized that I could address those issues (see below) while also tackling a more pressing subject that’s bothered me over the last decade or so.

The Disney resorts aren’t a topic that receives a lot of analysis here or elsewhere around the web. While the resorts are a frequent topic of discussion online, those conversations usually reside only in the realm of “which building is closest to the food court” or “how can I best profit from the collectible mug policy?” While it’s no doubt useful to dissect how to best encourage the housekeeping staff to fold your washcloths into wombats and so forth, it might be useful to occasionally step back and examine the resorts as a whole, and to think about why they’re there and how well they’re serving their purpose.

Polynesian Resort with MonorailFor historically-oriented Disney fans like me, the mention of Disney resorts tends to draw the mind’s focus to the Seven Seas Lagoon and the brace of resorts that were created for opening day in 1971. While the Polynesian and Contemporary Resorts have been joined by many other properties since that day, there’s something about those monorail-adjacent, lagoon-circling resorts that remain so appealing despite the later emergence of fancier and even more elaborately themed facilities.

Although these two original hotels represent only a fraction of the rooms on property today, we must look to them in order to contextualize all the other resorts that followed. After all, these were the only two resorts in whose creation Walt played a part; they are a rare remaining link to the original intent and purpose of the Walt Disney World development.

Walt Disney had wanted to build a hotel property at Disneyland upon its opening in 1955, but had funneled every available cent into the park itself and could raise no further funding. Instead, he convinced his friend Jack Wrather to build the Disneyland Hotel to serve the park’s visitors. Soon the park was hemmed in by outside development, and Wrather’s refusal to sell his hotel to Walt ensured that Disney was shut out of the resort business in Anaheim.

Groundbreaking of the Disneyland HotelJack Wrather, his wife Bonita Granville, and Anaheim mayor Charles Pearson break ground for the Disneyland Hotel on March 18, 1955. Photo found here.

This was to change in Orlando. It’s well known that Walt bought such an expansive parcel of land in Florida in order to shut out intrusions from commercial sprawl and outside developers. Walt Disney World was intended to be a complete resort – the “Vacation Kingdom of the World”. Part and parcel of this was the inclusion of themed resort hotels, a first for the company and indeed unique for the theme park industry of the time.

Walt Disney World Preview Edition

“The hotels have been called “theme resorts,” because everything from interior décor to employees’ costumes and dining room menus will be an expression of the same overall theme”
– 1969 WDP Annual Report

So new was the concept of the themed resort that a great deal of Walt Disney World’s pre-opening publicity focused on highlighting the hotels and their associated amenities. It’s almost bizarre to the modern eye to see that the Magic Kingdom was only promoted as one part of the complete resort experience – the hotels were integral to Disney’s strategy to become a travel destination.

Walt Disney World ad, 19721972 advertisement

The relevance of this trip down memory lane comes when you compare the resorts today to those first resorts in 1971. Not necessarily the resorts themselves, but their comparative positions in the travel industry.

By bringing their experience in design and customer service gained from years of theme park operations, Disney hoped to revolutionize the hotel experience. Ironically, though, they seemed unsure at first about how to deal with the hotels. New to the field of hotel management, the company planned to slowly dip their toe into the field by having Westin and Marriott operate the Contemporary and Polynesian resorts until Disney personnel felt that they had learned enough to take over. This plan was abandoned when Disney decided that only they could manage the hotels up to their standards.

Financial necessity then led to the creation of a peculiar arrangement with U.S. Steel, who had been responsible for the construction of the hotels. U.S. Steel set up a new division which would actually own the hotels; the properties would then be leased back to Disney for them to manage themselves. This deal didn’t last long, and by December of 1971, Disney had purchased U.S. Steel’s ownership of the hotel properties and was at last owner and operator of its own resorts.

Contemporary Resort under constructionThe Contemporary Resort under construction (AP photo)

Disney’s resorts were unique at the time. Obviously, high-end hotels already existed around the world, but Disney’s resorts featured levels of theming, customer service, and amenities that were rare if not unheard of among family vacation destinations.

The problem is, the world eventually caught up with the World. As Walt Disney World approaches its 40th anniversary, the tourism landscape is completely different from that of 1971. Disney might have invented the wheel, so to speak, but other corporations have spent the last four decades trying their best to copy it for their own use.

Highly themed environments aren’t rare anymore; you can find them at numerous vacation destinations or run-of-the-mill franchised restaurants. Disney still does it the best, but one look at Las Vegas, the Universal resorts, or even the Gaylord-owned Opryland hotels shows that the competition is catching up fast.

Portofino Bay HotelUniversal Orlando’s Portofino Bay Hotel

Where Disney has really fallen behind is that indefinable level of service that once set them apart. Over the years, as Disney added more and more rooms to property at different price levels, amenities began to slowly be stripped away. Disney guests used to wake up to a newspaper on their doorstep; this was later reserved for only the “deluxe” resorts. Also reserved for the lodging elite was the formerly-ballyhooed benefit of in-room package delivery. With the slow paring away of amenities, and the constant construction of new nearby off-property hotels with free park transportation, it’s slowly emerged that the only difference between Disney and their competitors is that the Disney resorts are far more expensive.

What’s more unsettling are the areas in which the rest of the industry has not only caught up with Disney but surpassed them. These days, pretty much any run-of-the-mill chain motel has free wi-fi, or at least internet service. Not only does internet access at Disney require calling room service for an Ethernet cable, but using the service costs the guest ten dollars per room, per day. This blatant price gouge puts Disney not only behind its high-end competition, but also far behind even its most lowly lodging competitors. It might seem like small potatoes, but considered in the light of the resort’s once-unparalleled level of service it looks shabby at best.

Looking at the so-called “moderate” and “value” resorts show how far Disney has fallen behind from a price-to-value perspective. The “value” resorts consist of the most bare-bones type of motel room, but are priced at a premium compared to their off-property competition. This is especially glaring when you consider the rise of the “family suite” concept in outside resorts, which allows a large group of people to stay in a well-appointed suite for a very reasonable price. When faced with the decision to book a family in a couple of small, spartan rooms at Pop Century or a larger, nicer, and much cheaper suite elsewhere, you start to wonder what the “Disney difference” really is. To be fair, Disney has toyed with the idea of family suites by converting some rooms at the All-Star Music hotel, but it remains to be see whether they’ll continue to expand on this concept.

All-Star Music Resort family suiteDisney publicity photo of a family suite at the All-Star Music Resort

This, at last, brings me to the All-Stars. The original title for this post was simply, “Re-theme the Value Resorts”. This was admittedly a narrow topic, fueled by my general antipathy towards the “value” resorts – the three “All-Star” hotels and the Pop Century resort. While there’s a difference of opinion in the fan communities about this – the resorts actually do have a number of devoted fans – to me they’re little more than a Motel 6 with an ambitious fiberglass budget.

While there’s an argument to be had for “fun” design and monolithic pop art (whether ginormous Coke cups and cell phones count is debatable), I believe the design of these resorts really, really miss the mark of acceptability for a Disney property. The embarrassing plywood catch phrases slapped on the side of Pop Century (“Mommy, are we staying in the “DUH” longhouse or the “DON’T HAVE A COW” lodge?”) send a shiver up my spine, as do the extremely cheap-looking cutouts of dancing silhouettes. The All-Star Movies resort actually has an entire building themed to – think of this! – The Mighty Ducks. It’s like a bad fever dream after reading one of Michael Eisner’s mid-1990s annual report letters.

All-Star Movies Resort Mighty Ducks buildingRelive cherished childhood dreams of… uh… hmm (Photo from AllEars.Net)

Now some might say that these low-end hotels just need to keep the kiddies happy and give guests a place to crash for the night. But while it might be easy to just forget about these ghastly, poorly-located hotels and leave them as a convenient oubliette for noisome Pop Warner teams or cheerleading squads, if I were running the show I’d pick up my crowbar and get to work.

Ground zero for this re-theming should be the Pop Century resort. Ironically, after I had decided to write about this issue, Jim Hill reported that Disney already plans to complete the unfinished “Legendary Years” section of the resort as family suites and to change the theme of the entire resort to “Disney’s Animation Inn & Suites”. Hill’s articles report that I’m not alone in my distain for the resort as it is – occupancy at the hotel has lagged behind that of the other value resorts. The animation theme, if done well, could be suitable for the already character-heavy resort, and hopefully if Disney goes ahead with the project they’ll execute it with a little more taste and detail than the current design.

Pop Century Resort 50s poolFail.

If they don’t follow this path, the resort is still in desperate need of a facelift. If management insists on sticking to the decade-specific concept, why not actually theme the buildings appropriately? Why not have a 1950s building with the same level of detail and atmosphere as the 50’s Prime Time Café at the Hollywood Studios park? An 1980s building designed like the cubic, mirrored-glass corporate skyscrapers of the era? Or ditch the 20th century theme and use the resort’s proximity to EPCOT as an excuse to theme the different buildings to the various nations of World Showcase. Just sell the giant cans of Play-Doh on eBay and get to work.

And what, then, of the All-Stars? If the Animation Inn becomes reality it could pointlessly duplicate the animated characters of the All-Star Movies resort. And does anyone ever call CRO and ask for a room in the Mighty Ducks building? Re-theme the buildings to various genres of film, not specific films themselves. Westerns, science-fiction, action-adventure… there are lots of possibilities for interesting resort designs. Of course one might argue that Disney resorts as a whole were originally intended to use tools and tricks gleaned from experience in production design to put people “inside” movies of their own, but if we’re going to have a hotel themed to “movies” why not make it count?

As for the Sports and Music hotels, just expand the concept. The All-Star Sports should actually feature some of the sporty facilities and amenities that were so highly promoted when Walt Disney World first opened. Maybe they could theme the buildings themselves to famous ballparks or stadia. The Music resort, if they choose to keep that theme, could be more visually themed to various musical genres. This should not just include generic iconography but specific themes. The Jazz area could be Depression-era Chicago, while the Classical building could be a Parisian concert hall. The Country hotel could draw from Nashville styles and the Rock & Roll building could be 1950s Los Angeles or 1960s London.

All-Star Music ResortNo.

The key is to do something more interesting than just corny cut-outs of musical notes and clip art stars. The buildings as they are now look like very basic, boxy motels with some cheap decorations slapped on – even if they retained their silly current themes, much more could be done to make them worthy of their heritage.

So that’s my proposal for the resorts – basically, take a look around at what the competition is doing and try to get Disney back as far ahead of other resorts as they used to be. Don’t skimp on the extra services or amenities, and don’t overlook the value resorts just because they’re at the bottom of the food chain. And for heavens sake, remodel those value resorts. I’m sure the Mighty Ducks fans will understand.

Jonny Duck

UPDATE: A thoughtful response to this article has been posted at Web Watch, and although I don’t seem to be able to reply there, I did want to provide a link and a reply here. The response makes a good point about my complaints about Disney’s in-room internet service, and underscores to me the dangers of basing a statement not on research but my own anecdotal evidence.

A more in-depth look at the level of internet service in off-property hotels shows an initially counter-intuitive fact: mid-range hotels, aimed at the business traveler, are more likely to have free internet access while high-price hotels in resort areas are more likely to charge for service. Then again, maybe it’s not so counter-intuitive after all. In any case, it still seems odd to me that the inexpensive Fairfield Inn down the street from your house will have free wi-fi while very pricey destination resorts don’t. This is the disconnect that led to my complaint – surfing the net for free at a cheap hotel in an out-of-the-way town has made me wonder, why the $10 a day at Disney?

In any case, it appears that my claims of extreme price gouging at Disney aren’t quite fair when considering the local resort competition. However, if you consider my original thesis – that Disney needs to return to that level of supreme and inclusive service that they aspired to in 1971 – then this shouldn’t be an issue. Even if the fancy off-property hotels are charging $10-$20 a day for internet access, it should be part of the package at the Vacation Kingdom of the World.

Related Posts...

Where’s Walt? June, 1935

Walt and Lillian Disney, London, 1935Walt and Lillian Disney with unnamed friend, London, 1935. (AP Photo)

Our inaugural look back at the adventures of Walt Disney and family comes from June 12th, 1935, and finds Walt and his wife Lillian in London. The Disneys, posing here with Walt’s most famous employee, are standing on the roof of the Grosvenor House. The caption at the time stated wryly, “The couple are in London on a honeymoon, although they have been married for ten years.”

Related Posts...

Your Friday Night What The What?!?!

OK, so I realize I had to work all day unlike you jive turkeys, so I just found out about this…

DreamWorks Logo

This morning Nikki Finke broke the story (heck of a scoop, by the way), which has since been confirmed, that if things continue according to plan Disney will announce on Monday that it has signed a deal to distribute films for Steven Spielberg’s Dreamworks studio.

Ok, I didn’t expect that one.

The story, in short:

Jeff Katzenberg leaves Disney in 1994 thanks to Michael “I hate the little midget” Eisner’s managerial shenanigans. Katzenberg teams up with Spielberg and music maven David Geffen to form DreamWorks SKG, intended to be the first new Hollywood studio in decades. They announce plans to build a high-tech production lot and animation studio. Things don’t quite work out that way.

Money issues persist over the years, although DreamWorks does luck into a distribution deal with PDI, which makes Shrek and subsequently a great deal of money. The more ambitious studio-building plans fade over the years, and in 2006 DreamWorks is sold to Viacom/Paramount. Lots of arcane business deals take place; the animation division is spun off into its own separately-traded company and film rights are auctioned off. DreamWorks and Paramount don’t get along, and in 2008 Spielberg and friends sign a financing deal with Reliance ADA Group, a Bollywood media conglomerate.

The deal with the Indian company would allow DreamWorks to spin itself back away from Paramount into an independent production company, but they’d still need someone to distribute their films. In mid- to late-2008 it was widely known that Disney was vying for a deal, but DreamWorks eventually chose Universal as a partner due to Spielberg’s long history with the studio. Finke claims that Geffen preferred Disney and even Fox at the time, but Spielberg’s nostalgia won the day and an agreement was reached last fall.

An agreement, but not a deal. As the year concluded, DreamWorks’ financial situation worsened. When the global credit markets dried up, DreamWorks couldn’t borrow enough money to consummate their deal with Reliance ADA and became more demanding in their negotiations with Universal. Universal, not immune to the worldwide financial woes, could not keep up with DreamWorks’ constantly shifting conditions and tempers frayed. Then, apparently, Universal discovered that DreamWorks had secretly sent emissaries to try and negotiate better terms with Disney. This was apparently the last straw for Universal, who subsequently called off the wedding and cleared the field for a waiting Disney.

This is all not only very surprising but fairly bizarre. Disney has been very concerned with cutting production costs in recent years (hence the ditching of Walden Media and the Narnia franchise), and have tried to pare their release schedule down to the bare bones. Iger’s professed goal was a small slate of films each year, with only the best, family-friendly and high-profit concepts sent into production. Now they’re hooking up with DreamWorks, whose live-action fare doesn’t typically fit into the Disney mold and whose pictures will clutter up the release schedule. Add to this that DreamWorks had some fairly steep demands in their negotiations with Universal, and it’s hard to imagine Disney just handing over several hundred million dollars upfront along with sweetheart distribution fees and whatever else Spielberg might require.

Not that I’m complaining…

So aside from the sheer insanity of all this, why the coverage here? Well, it’s possible that this deal with have some interesting side effects. As Finke mentions, Spielberg has some interest in the theme park field and seems keen to get involved. As a life-long Disney fan (Walt Disney fan, more importantly), Spielberg might be able to bring a bit of creative juice (and funding) to the parks. And since Dreamworks Animation’s distribution remains with Paramount we’ll be saved from Shrek pooting around in Fantasyland.

Also intriguing is the possibility that one of the several abandoned Roger Rabbit projects might see the light of day. The original film was a co-production between Disney and Spielberg’s Amblin Entertainment, and any use of Roger over the years required the assent of both parties. This is why the character, once so prominent, basically vanished once DreamWorks was founded as a competitor to Disney. Several ideas for sequels were developed over the years but went nowhere due to corporate indifference and conflict. Can Bob Iger, the man who brought Oswald the Lucky Rabbit back into the Disney fold after 80 years, recover another lapine prodigal? We shall see…

Related Posts...

Ten Wishes for the New Year: #10

For the start of the new year, I had hoped to do one of those “top ten” lists of things I’d like to see happen in the Disney parks – and especially Walt Disney World – in 2009. Not that I would deem any of my wishes likely to be fulfilled, and in many cases it’s obvious that they’re complete non-starters as far as management is concerned, but I’m a fan of lists and unsolicited criticism so why not?

So let’s pretend that it’s not already February, and that I’ve done this in a remotely timely fashion. Here’s the first of ten things that I’d like to see at the Disney parks in 2009:

#10 – New Attractions

Tokyo DisneySea 20,000 Leagues Under the SeaMight this DisneySea attraction actually make its way to Animal Kingdom?

Now, I know that a theme park fan listing “new attractions” among their wishes is like someone naming “food” or “oxygen” as something they’d like to see in the new year. But we’re picky here at the Progress City Bureau of Land Management, and we don’t just drop rides into the parks willy-nilly. In fact, despite a fairly continuous “drip-drip” of attractions over the last several years, many areas of the parks are still in need of additions and revitalization.

Our top nominee for this dubious honor is World Showcase at EPCOT Center, which hasn’t seen a new pavilion for – wait for it – 21 years. Yes, you are old and so am I. There are people who voted in the last election who have never seen an addition to World Showcase in their lifetime. There are soldiers serving in Iraq now who are three years younger than the Maelstrom. That’s how static Showcase has become.

Now, personally I love Showcase. Since the demise of the great Future World pavilions it’s become my favorite half of the park. And, to be fair, they’ve kept it fairly fresh over the years by adding some quality live entertainment and a variety of seasonal festivals. But there’s been no actual new construction in that time, and when you consider that there have been at least seven new national pavilions “officially” announced since the park’s opening that have never seen the light of day (I count Equatorial Africa, Israel, Spain, Venezuela, Russia, Denmark, and Switzerland), it all starts to seem like an anti-climax.

EPCOT Equatorial Africa renderingComing soon – Equatorial Africa! Opening 1983!

A great deal of this has to do with Disney’s rather harsh sponsorship requirements for the national pavilions. Finding an interested party willing to sign a long term contract with Disney to pony up the cash for building, staffing and maintaining a pavilion is dicey even in the best of economic times. Even then, there are political and ethical concerns – Equatorial Africa fell through when the only willing sponsors Disney could find were based in then-apartheid South Africa.

Israel Pavilion Coming Soon SignNo? How about an Israel pavilion? Coming soon in 1983!

Yet even when Disney finds willing parties, plans often fall through. Negotiations with various Soviet and Russian governments have taken place on and off since at least 1978. A deal was actually signed with Spain in 1981, and those negotiations continued to take place as recently as 2002. Around that same time, South Korean investors approached Disney in the hopes of sponsoring a pavilion and were publicly rebuffed.

EPCOT Russia pavilion nighttime renderingSo that’s a no on the Russia thing?

So after decades of stagnation, what can be done to revitalize World Showcase? Well, for one thing it’s obvious that Disney should find ways to amend their sponsorship agreements to be less demanding on the host nations. The pavilion sponsorships are real sweetheart deals for Disney, and while I don’t suggest they give away the shop for free, it might spur development to find ways to reduce the startup cost for sponsors.

EPCOT Spain pavilion coming soon signBut… we signed this deal for the Spain pavilion! Coming soon!

More importantly, there needs to be someone at Disney who is excited about the potential of World Showcase, and who can get out there and really sell it to the host nations and their various corporations. Perhaps they should hire some sort of goodwill ambassador, who can travel the world to help drum up support for their efforts. Or, as it was suggested last year when Disney entered the Russian television market, pavilion sponsorships can be rolled into larger, cross-corporate negotiations.

EPCOT Swiss pavilion renderingAnd then Eisner promised us Switzerland…

In any case, something most be done. While the rumors persist that Disney has in fact found a sponsor for a new attraction to fill the perpetually empty show building behind the Japan pavilion, nothing has been announced. Even a new attraction there would do nothing to fill the empty expansion pads in the rest of World Showcase, or do anything to help hide the fact that several significant nations are still missing from EPCOT’s international lineup.

EPCOT Venezuela pavilion renderingAnd Venezuela is long forgotten.

There are other sites that also require new attractions. A glaring case is the former Wonders of Life pavilion, which now sits completely empty. While I have my own pet project that I would put here, in general I believe that something is preferable to nothing and this space should be filled by something new, exciting and visionary.

The Magic Kingdom’s Tomorrowland needs new attractions, but then again so do the Tomorrowlands in Anaheim, Paris and Tokyo. No clones, please. And although the 17-year span since the Kingdom last received an E-ticket might end if the Little Mermaid attraction rumors prove true, they still have to announce and build it before the drought is officially over. Paris’s park has been long dormant as well, and could use – at last – that Splash Mountain or Indiana Jones attraction to fill those empty expansion pads.

Disneyland Paris Adventureland Indiana Jones SiteEmpty chairs at empty tables: A plot of Disneyland Paris’s currently-empty Adventureland expansion pad, originally intended for an Indiana Jones dark ride.

Hollywood Studios needs a great deal of attention and expansion – start by dumping Aladdin’s Flying Carpets and the Monsters, Inc. Laugh Floor there, and then build some real attractions. Go ahead and announce the Monsters, Inc. coaster – you can find a sponsor for it later. And the park’s ugly cousin, the Disney Studios Paris, needs far more new expansion than a few fun-fair rides dolled up in Toy Story theming – it needs an overhaul far vaster than that planned for California Adventure. These parks need atmosphere – that indescribable sense of place that is so potent in Disneyland yet so missing from the tarmac and prefab design of the later parks. Sometimes a well-themed area is an attraction in and of itself. And more than anything, these third-generation half-parks need the lavish, animatronic-heavy dark ride spectaculars that Disney used to be known for.

California Adventure Plaza Concept ArtCalifornia Adventure’s extreme thematic makeover – a good start

Animal Kingdom, though redolent in atmosphere, needs dark rides as well, DisneySea needs to expand without selling out, and Hong Kong Disneyland… well, finish it first and then we’ll talk.

You’ll notice that all of my suggestions are for “in-fill” attractions – we don’t need new gates at any of the resorts right now. There’s so much unfinished business in each and every Disney park that it would be unfortunate to spend huge sums on new developments when expansion pads and shuttered attractions still sit empty.

Like the Adventurer’s Club. Shame, oh shame on you, Jay Rasulo.

While even a fourth of my suggestions probably prices me way out of the Mouse’s spending targets, there are a number of expansion rumors out there which, if true, suggest that they are at least somewhat willing to take out their checkbook. Think of it as economic stimulus, Team Disney – ask not what your countries can do for you, but what you can do to build more countries.

Related Posts...

Progress City Desktops – World Showcase, Part I

World Showcase Desktop Background

One of the first things I wanted to do when I started this site was to share some great Disney concept art that I’ve scanned and cleaned up over the years to make desktop backgrounds. Finally I seem to have gotten around to it. The first desktop I have for you is a piece of art that was created to promote World Showcase in 1982. It appeared in a brochure for EPCOT Center, in an era when Disney’s promotional materials were far more evocative and artistic than the garish, Photoshopped disasters they are today.

In any case, the artwork is reminiscent of all the wonderful conceptual work done for EPCOT Center at the time.

One caveat: Because I didn’t want to be ridiculous, I didn’t watermark or “brand” these backgrounds in any way. However, they did take me an absurdly long time to slap together, so if you share or redistribute them in any way please give a bit of credit and a link to your pals here at Progress City.

Click to download:

Standard
1280×1024 1024×768 800×600

Widescreen
1920×1200 1680×1050 1440×900 1280×800

Related Posts...